We are continually balancing things in our estimate of the severity of crimes, and the
appropriate penalties. Thus, we distinguish between murder and manslaughter, with
various gradations besides. By the logic you have employed in your post, the fact that we
recognize justifiable homicide, or treat negligent homicide less harshly than murder, means
that we are insincere in our desire to do justice, and instead merely want to control---
whom? to what purpose? Few people have the heart to ban abortion in cases of rape and
incest. Does the fact that they find these sufficient excuses mean that they are merely
"conrolling" in the other instances? At worst, it means that they are "going soft", and
should ban all abortions. At best, it is a complex calculation of when the lack of
responsibility of the mother, and the horror of the circumstances, weigh in favor of
mercy...
You are missing the point. It is a question of not treating severely those who are
implicated in the abortion...No, it does not mean that they "don't really believe", it means
that there is enough of a shadow of a doubt about the humanity of the fetus to make
narrow exceptions. No one is pretending that the fetus is a criminal...In any event, if you
read my arguments against abortion, the humanity of the fetus did not enter into them... |
